CXLIV - The Tempe era set to begin as ASU opens Mullett Arena

[TheLegend]

About that $1.8B project...

$1.8B Tempe Town Lake project at center of lawsuit over the city's affordable housing strategy

Source (Paywall): www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2022/08/27/south-pier-tempe-affordable-housing-lawsuit/7845672001/

I did say that I know of.

The gist of this is…. The developer is putting up $10 million to Tempe for their program on lower cost housing, but a group says “that isn’t enough, and we demand the developer to include low cost housing in the project.”

BTW… Meruelo is already pledging money to the same fund in addition to money for extending the Tempe Street Car in his proposal.

 

[mouser]

If this is an example of Tempe decision making tax paying residents are facing a serious disaster with the whole arena thing.

I don’t sense you have a good understanding of Tempe’s financial situation and the history of the town lake development, you‘re having more of an emotional reflex.

The whole town lake development plan goes back over two decades. While it’s difficult to calculate the exact numbers, Tempe has probably created GPLET’s for over $10B in new development in those 20 years and will be issuing many more in upcoming years.

Tempe has been chugging along quite well in spite of all these “discounts” in the GPLETs to developers. Investment and real estate development have been phenomenal in Tempe the past decade, with tax base growth increasing.

I’ve lived in the Tempe area for 30 years, it’s almost impossible to describe how the city core near Tempe town lake has been transformed in that time. That transformation has accelerated the past decade. Not just the city of Tempe, but ASU muscling their Athletic Facilities District for new real estate development which Tempe collects sales taxes on.

I‘m going to wait and see the final details of any deal between Tempe and the Coyotes before passing judgement. Don’t know yet whether it will be a good or bad deal for Tempe, but it’s definitely not going to be the straw that broke Tempe’s camel back or creates a disaster for tax payers.

 

[Mike Jones]

I don’t sense you have a good understanding of Tempe’s financial situation and the history of the town lake development, you‘re having more of an emotional reflex.

The whole town lake development plan goes back over two decades. While it’s difficult to calculate the exact numbers, Tempe has probably created GPLET’s for over $10B in new development in those 20 years and will be issuing many more in upcoming years.

Tempe has been chugging along quite well in spite of all these “discounts” in the GPLETs to developers. Investment and real estate development have been phenomenal in Tempe the past decade, with tax base growth increasing.

I’ve lived in the Tempe area for 30 years, it’s almost impossible to describe how the city core near Tempe town lake has been transformed in that time. That transformation has accelerated the past decade. Not just the city of Tempe, but ASU muscling their Athletic Facilities District for new real estate development which Tempe collects sales taxes on.

I‘m going to wait and see the final details of any deal between Tempe and the Coyotes before passing judgement. Don’t know yet whether it will be a good or bad deal for Tempe, but it’s definitely not going to be the straw that broke Tempe’s camel back or creates a disaster for tax payers.

I hope it works out but I have serious doubts whenever tax dollars are thrown into the pockets of billionaires.

 

[Llama19]

Confusion over the terms of the Intergovernmental agreement (IGA), events that have occurred since the 1994 IGA, and where Sky Harbor stands on specific issues has recently surfaced. For this reason, we are sharing answers to frequently asked questions on this issue.

Does the Intergovernmental agreement between Phoenix and Tempe make an exception for soundproofed apartments in the high noise area under the flight path?

Tempe is obligated in the IGA to “take all actions necessary” to implement land use strategies recommended in the Part 150 Plan and to ensure “new development undertaken in connection with the Rio Salado project or in noise sensitive environs [65 DNL] within its jurisdiction will be compatible” with noise levels predicted in the plan. The IGA further required Phoenix to update the Part 150 plan and submit it to the FAA. And the updated Part 150 Plan specifically recommends against any residential in the 65 decibel day/night level (DNL) noise area. Recently, the FAA has also stated in writing that residential development in this high noise area is incompatible land use.

Isn’t this the same argument Sky Harbor used when opposing the proposed Cardinals stadium?

In 2001, the City of Phoenix raised concerns about the potential noise level over the proposed Cardinals stadium – because at that time the project would have been in the 70 DNL noise area. However, an even greater issue was the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration declared the proposed stadium a hazard to air navigation.

Did Phoenix previously support a housing development in a high-noise area in Tempe?

In 2013, the developer of Papago Park Center north of Tempe Town Lake worked with Sky Harbor’s planners to minimize the impact of the project on the Airport, and pushed the relatively small residential portion of the project as far to the edge of the noise contour as they could, while placing the compatible portions (office and research space) inside of the contour. The result – only a small fraction of the residential units were built within the high noise area. The developer of that private land was not a party to the IGA, whereas Tempe and the Tempe-owned land related to the TED development is subject to the requirements of the IGA.

Since 1999, has Phoenix supported 21 residential projects with 4,800 apartments developed around Tempe Town Lake and west of the airport within the same noise level zone as the Tempe Entertainment District?

No, that is not accurate. Since 1999, the noise contours around Sky Harbor have become significantly smaller because planes are not as noisy as they once were. The Noise Exposure Maps have been updated twice since 1999, and accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The residential projects referenced in this question are not within the current noise contours - not in the 65 DNL high noise area.

Source: www.skyharbor.com/tempeentertainmentdistrict/FAQ

 

[Stumbledore]

developer is putting up $10 million to Tempe for their program on lower cost housing, but a group says “that isn’t enough, and we demand the developer to include low cost housing in the project.”

BTW… Meruelo is already pledging money to the same fund in addition to money for extending the Tempe Street Car in his proposal.

There's always "a group" with demands.

They have no dog in the hunt, no cash on the table, no reason to get involved other than their pet cause -- anything from homelessness to saving some fricking endangered toad -- but they stick their noses in and make demands.

Give me a break.

I don’t sense you have a good understanding of Tempe’s financial situation and the history of the town lake development, you‘re having more of an emotional reflex.

Son, emotional reflexes without any understanding is what drives these boards!

(Okay, I'll go take my meds and lie down for a nap now...)

 

[TheLegend]

Confusion over the terms of the Intergovernmental agreement (IGA), events that have occurred since the 1994 IGA, and where Sky Harbor stands on specific issues has recently surfaced. For this reason, we are sharing answers to frequently asked questions on this issue.

Does the Intergovernmental agreement between Phoenix and Tempe make an exception for soundproofed apartments in the high noise area under the flight path?

Tempe is obligated in the IGA to “take all actions necessary” to implement land use strategies recommended in the Part 150 Plan and to ensure “new development undertaken in connection with the Rio Salado project or in noise sensitive environs [65 DNL] within its jurisdiction will be compatible” with noise levels predicted in the plan. The IGA further required Phoenix to update the Part 150 plan and submit it to the FAA. And the updated Part 150 Plan specifically recommends against any residential in the 65 decibel day/night level (DNL) noise area. Recently, the FAA has also stated in writing that residential development in this high noise area is incompatible land use.

Isn’t this the same argument Sky Harbor used when opposing the proposed Cardinals stadium?

In 2001, the City of Phoenix raised concerns about the potential noise level over the proposed Cardinals stadium – because at that time the project would have been in the 70 DNL noise area. However, an even greater issue was the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration declared the proposed stadium a hazard to air navigation.

Did Phoenix previously support a housing development in a high-noise area in Tempe?

In 2013, the developer of Papago Park Center north of Tempe Town Lake worked with Sky Harbor’s planners to minimize the impact of the project on the Airport, and pushed the relatively small residential portion of the project as far to the edge of the noise contour as they could, while placing the compatible portions (office and research space) inside of the contour. The result – only a small fraction of the residential units were built within the high noise area. The developer of that private land was not a party to the IGA, whereas Tempe and the Tempe-owned land related to the TED development is subject to the requirements of the IGA.

Since 1999, has Phoenix supported 21 residential projects with 4,800 apartments developed around Tempe Town Lake and west of the airport within the same noise level zone as the Tempe Entertainment District?

No, that is not accurate. Since 1999, the noise contours around Sky Harbor have become significantly smaller because planes are not as noisy as they once were. The Noise Exposure Maps have been updated twice since 1999, and accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The residential projects referenced in this question are not within the current noise contours - not in the 65 DNL high noise area.

Source: www.skyharbor.com/tempeentertainmentdistrict/FAQ

Meh….

Sky Harbor trying to deflect the fact the Arizona Republic found receipts of them signing off on other housing projects within the same area.

 

[Tawnos]

I hope it works out but I have serious doubts whenever tax dollars are thrown into the pockets of billionaires.

Let's not conflate doing this kind of thing for stadiums with doing it for other legitimate business investments. Outside of the stadium question, using tax breaks to incentivize other types of business development more often turns out to benefit the city than not and often lures investment that would have just gone to another city willing to offer those breaks otherwise. I wouldn't call my city's government especially competent, especially in regards to questions of equity, but even they have been able to create huge boosts to the local economy by incentivizing investment through tax policy.

Stadiums/arenas are another question, because there have been lots of studies that haven't been able to quantify an ultimate positive economic impact, but they're sort of a different story.

 

[Mike Jones]

Stadiums/arenas are another question, because there have been lots of studies that haven't been able to quantify an ultimate positive economic impact, but they're sort of a different story.

The evidence is clear enough for cities like Calgary to say no to NHL teams who don't want to spend money on their own arenas.

If the city builds an arena we, as taxpayers, need the revenue and not the NHL teams. The NHL teams are tenants and need to start acting like it when they operate in someone else's house.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

The market is shaped like a Bow-Tie or hour glass (due to mountains and suburban spawl). Glendale is a bad location because it's on the extreme edge of the market. The other side of the bowtie has to drive through the bottleneck to get to the arena, which is very hard on gameday.

Tempe is the knot of the bowtie, easily accessible by everyone. Hence, worth it.

I usually use a peanut as the analogous shape, but everything he says here is dead on.

Having just been on a tour of NHL arenas over the last two weeks including Queens, Detroit, Edmonton, and Seattle, I look forward to a new, modern palace like these in my own backyard...I also went to Vancouver and, um, y'all are due for a renovation or something. It is tough to get around the lower concourse there, embarrassingly so now. (Plus, who blocks off an entire section of a concourse making a dead end, and impossible to do a lap unless you have club access? I mean at least Seattle had an excuse, due to having to conform to unusual circumstances.)

 

[Apex Predator]

Is this Tempe arena official yet? Are there going to be any hold ups or complications if it isn’t yet?

 

[mouser]

Stadiums/arenas are another question, because there have been lots of studies that haven't been able to quantify an ultimate positive economic impact, but they're sort of a different story.

Fully agree. I would be curious on the studies for indirect economic impact on cultural public spending. A simple example being building a pubic museum or art center, which usually run a negative bottom line.

Is there a “cultural” indirect economic benefit to having a major arena and pro team? I have no idea what the answer is, but would be interested in reading any academia studies on that topic.

 

[Tawnos]

Fully agree. I would be curious on the studies for indirect economic impact on cultural public spending. A simple example being building a pubic museum or art center, which usually run a negative bottom line.

Is there a “cultural” indirect economic benefit to having a major arena and pro team? I have no idea what the answer is, but would be interested in reading any academia studies on that topic.

Not sure, but your point about the negative bottom line is one I like. Government is not business. Running a surplus of tax revenue vs spending is not really a good thing and neither is running a deficit, though obviously a deficit can be worse if mismanaged. The ideal is flat. Tax revenue should be spent. Providing cultural services to a city, such as the things you mentioned plus things like libraries, are worthwhile endeavors. Not every single thing has to boil down to dollars and cents economics.

The question is whether or not that same approach should be taken for stadiums and arenas when their main purpose is to house teams who are owned by the rich. Sports are just as worthwhile of a cultural pursuit as the arts. If you're going to house a major league team and have a massive land and infrastructure project as part of that, it makes a certain amount of sense of governments to have skin in the game, even if the owner can pay for it without their help.

And then, sort of like the space program, you have the question of whether or not the government should be spending that tax revenue on improving more basic services or equity issues. I'd much rather my city take all the tax incentives they are gearing up to give to the Carolina Panthers' owner and really invest in affordable housing and mass transit, for example, but I know that the money being used to help the Panthers is coming. The city council would say "we can do both," but their money is not entirely where their mouth is on this.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Is there a “cultural” indirect economic benefit to having a major arena and pro team? I have no idea what the answer is, but would be interested in reading any academia studies on that topic.

hear, hear...

Not sure, but your point about the negative bottom line is one I like. Government is not business. Running a surplus of tax revenue vs spending is not really a good thing and neither is running a deficit, though obviously a deficit can be worse if mismanaged. The ideal is flat. Tax revenue should be spent. Providing cultural services to a city, such as the things you mentioned plus things like libraries, are worthwhile endeavors. Not every single thing has to boil down to dollars and cents economics.

Yes, I'm sure the people on here whining about public expenditures benefitting private individuals have no problem with museums, galleries, theatres, "high-brow" culture that *can* benefit everyone...although not everyone takes advantage of them. But there's something to be said about "low-brow" culture opportunities as well, that again *can* benefit everyone...although not everyone takes advantage of them.

And that's just it; I was talking to the guy running a Seattle cafe Tuesday about various topics, 90s NBA, NHL etc., and now that they have the Kraken, that's another "Seattle" thing that "Seattle people" can do to be "Seattle-y", like wearing a "12" Seahawks jersey. It makes it that difficult-to-quantify much cooler to live in/near Seattle vs. say Spokane.

Although my claim still is and shall forever be that most on here doing the whining and mashing of the like button just don't want a partially publicly funded arena *in Tempe* for not-so-highly-"moral" reasons. And that as this megathread dies a long, slow, whimpering death they will gradually disperse.

 

[aqib]

Not sure, but your point about the negative bottom line is one I like. Government is not business. Running a surplus of tax revenue vs spending is not really a good thing and neither is running a deficit, though obviously a deficit can be worse if mismanaged. The ideal is flat. Tax revenue should be spent. Providing cultural services to a city, such as the things you mentioned plus things like libraries, are worthwhile endeavors. Not every single thing has to boil down to dollars and cents economics.

The question is whether or not that same approach should be taken for stadiums and arenas when their main purpose is to house teams who are owned by the rich. Sports are just as worthwhile of a cultural pursuit as the arts. If you're going to house a major league team and have a massive land and infrastructure project as part of that, it makes a certain amount of sense of governments to have skin in the game, even if the owner can pay for it without their help.

And then, sort of like the space program, you have the question of whether or not the government should be spending that tax revenue on improving more basic services or equity issues. I'd much rather my city take all the tax incentives they are gearing up to give to the Carolina Panthers' owner and really invest in affordable housing and mass transit, for example, but I know that the money being used to help the Panthers is coming. The city council would say "we can do both," but their money is not entirely where their mouth is on this.

That's the key point. Not every deal is going to look good on a spreadsheet. The old saying "not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts"

Not every thing a city does can look good on a spreadsheet. Yeah a stadium deal won't look good on a spreadsheet, but you can't quantify all the benefits that having a team would do for the area and if you're not NY or LA the city/state/county is going to have to chip in to get or keep a team.

As far as the Panthers go they could easily become the Toronto, San Antonio, or St Louis Panthers if the city or state doesn't chip in.

However, its important to point out that while sports deals get all the hype, they are a small fraction of what businesses get. Look at the billions that are being thrown at chip manufacturers or the $2+ billion Virginia is giving to Amazon.

 

[aqib]

The evidence is clear enough for cities like Calgary to say no to NHL teams who don't want to spend money on their own arenas.

If the city builds an arena we, as taxpayers, need the revenue and not the NHL teams. The NHL teams are tenants and need to start acting like it when they operate in someone else's house.

How much you want to bet that the city or Province will contribute something to the arena?

 

[gstommylee]

Must i remind people that land the tempe arena is being planed is a landfill and no matter what the city does with it, its the city responsibility to clean it up if its going to be redeveloped not any private group. So its impossible for anything to be truly 100% private aka (private groups pay for all of it including cleaning up the landfil) whether thats an entertainment district + arena or low income housing etc if that land is going to be used for it. People are going need to accept that.

 

[Mike Jones]

How much you want to bet that the city or Province will contribute something to the arena?

Sadly, our Mayor and Council aren't competent enough to say no to the Flames and will give them everything they want. We'll suffer for it and it will be disastrous but the Flames are gods in this town and they get everything they want.

 

[TheLegend]

Heads up.....

 

[Tawnos]

Assuming it passes, what's the next step where we will know "this is 100% happening?"

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Assuming it passes, what's the next step where we will know "this is 100% happening?"

When they pour concrete

 

[Takuto Maruki]

When they pour concrete

God, when that happens the amount of well deserved celebrating from Yotes fans on this board who've had to deal with thinly veiled hatred from entitled Canadians and NE Americans will be glorious.

 

[JasonDemersWasOkay]

God, when that happens the amount of well deserved celebrating from Yotes fans on this board who've had to deal with thinly veiled hatred from entitled Canadians and NE Americans will be glorious.

That veil doesn't exist if you ask me

 

[Takuto Maruki]

That veil doesn't exist if you ask me

Oh, it absolutely doesn't. But I'm being charitable.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

God, when that happens the amount of well deserved celebrating from Yotes fans on this board who've had to deal with thinly veiled hatred from entitled Canadians and NE Americans will be glorious.

Well, some of us might wait until they actually drop a puck in it...but....yes, the dunking will be.... breathtaking. Might even be worth a ban or two.

 

[LadyStanley]

First, viral pix from very early start of build out.

Second. Presentation to Tempe city council 11/22. Vote expected 11/29.